If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think it significant that the participants were elected. We'll see the reaction of the general TX population .

Originally Posted by Uncle Bill

Some BODY is going to do it. I'd druther a few parents with US Constitutional beliefs making the suggestions than what's been foisted on us by the ACLU, assorted liberal/socialists, and environmental airheads.

Have you read what's being taught in public schools recently, Marvin? Or, what ISN"T included? Ever hear of a high school student talking about Econ 101...or Civics?

But I have seen references to "Sally has two mommies", and in our neck of the woods, the revisionists have excluded almost all mention of the pioneers getting killed by the Native Americans. Actually that part of American history is hardly taught at all, from any perspective.

I think the people of Texas have had enough of the revisionists and political correct crowd, and it's time to get back to teaching the foundational basics upon which this nation was established.

Plus it's also an attempt at taking away the power of the feds and the NTA unions that insert many of their views of not what it was, but how they thought it should have been.

You can bet the MSP, teachers unions, and all the atheists that want all mention of God removed from any US and state documents, money, the Pledge, and everything the founders thought important for a moral society to thrive, will be taken to court by their pawns in the ACLU. It's another attempt at corrupting this nation's foundations, so the socialistic oligarchy is in place for the eventual One World Government.

I for one applaud what the Texas board of education is doing. I'll take my chances with them way ahead of what has been in charge. UB

UB - Having children & grandchildren there was/is always concern about what they are being taught.

The educational system has some fairly homogenous ideas about what is acceptable to present to impressionable young minds, unfortunately it is many times one sided . For example, the idea that everyone should line up to help those in perceived need without thought as to why they got there. & it's no different at one's place of employment. We step on these bandwagons, everyone rides, with the person who says "Why are'nt they helping themselves" being looked upon as heartless. Maybe there should be the subject that it's OK to have different views.

As for minorities, IMO many of them got a raw deal, but that's hopefully in the past, so they/we need to get along with life. But we still have bigotry, which is unfortunate, but again it's there & we need to move on. Insecurity will create bigotry quicker than anything!

It would be nice if our educators were well versed enough to present all sides to an issue, allow debate & establish why some things were acceptable, not acceptable or neither! Then the system would be teaching people the ability to reason through an issue.

But, similiar to what you are thinking, I to believe the pendulum has swung much too far to one sided presentations.

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

That, in my belief and the belief of the Courts, is giving respect to an establishment of religion.

Religion & religious zealots are an everyday fact of life, why is it wrong to acknowledge that religion is part of our/others being?

I can remember being taught of the Crusades, though there was considerable time spent on the subject, I remember none of the detail as to why or what. As I have gone further in life & become hopefully more literate, I find that what was presented was insignificant in world events but the actions were not!

Why is what Israel does not OK, while what Palestine & the Arabic nations do is OK? Which nations treat their citizenry better? Maybe that would make a good subject for a lesson plan.

But beyond this I hope that the discussion of what's being done in TX is less about religion & more about what children nationwide are being taught on all subjects relevant to everyday life.

I think the people of Texas have had enough of the revisionists and political correct crowd, and it's time to get back to teaching the foundational basics upon which this nation was established.

Plus it's also an attempt at taking away the power of the feds and the NTA unions that insert many of their views of not what it was, but how they thought it should have been.

You can bet the MSP, teachers unions, and all the atheists that want all mention of God removed from any US and state documents, money, the Pledge, and everything the founders thought important for a moral society to thrive, will be taken to court by their pawns in the ACLU. It's another attempt at corrupting this nation's foundations, so the socialistic oligarchy is in place for the eventual One World Government.

I for one applaud what the Texas board of education is doing. I'll take my chances with them way ahead of what has been in charge.

UB

I'm all for getting back to our foundation on which this Nation was founded. Since it was founded primarily by Deist (Jefferson, Washington, Payne, Adams etc.) their belief was not in the Christian god but Nature's god. Deism is founded on REASON and not superstition, enlightenment and not darkness. http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
All the references to a god where not what the Founding Fathers intended. All the referenses to god were added much later by those wanting to change the intent of our founders. For instance, "In God We Trust" was not added to our currency until circa 1920'a.

In regards to the textbook; Just as long as they keep it real and not influnenced by religion.

This is a local, Texas, issue. Since the federal government does not choose the text book I'm not sure the US Constitution has jurisdiction.

I believe the constitution provides freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

If the voters in Texas do not like the decisions their school board are making they can vote them out of office.

Most of the uproar I have heard is not from Texas. I do not believe government school should be teaching religion, that should be done in the home.

Tom

This is a popular catch phrase, but I am never quite sure what it means. The Constitution does not protect us from people wanting to celebrate their religious beliefs publicly. To do so would violate freedom to practice religion. This is true whether it is you wanting to put up religious displays at Christmas, or your neighbor wanting to put up a display saying there is no God or Santa at the same time. What it does prohibit is the government becoming an agent for publicizing religion. This limitation applies to Texas the same as it applies to the Federal government by virtue of the 14th amendment to the Constitution and a variety of Court cases based on it. However, the choice of textbooks would only become a Consttutional issue if the Board decides to purchase textbooks that incorporate religious teachings that violate the first amendment limits. I agree absolutely that the government should stay away from anything related to teaching religion. However, I have no objection to schools incorporating discussions about the historical role of religion (I do not how one could teach history while ignoring religion) as long as that teaching does not become a vehicle for suggesting that any particular religion is "preferred" or "correct".

This is a local, Texas, issue. Since the federal government does not choose the text book I'm not sure the US Constitution has jurisdiction.

I believe the constitution provides freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

If the voters in Texas do not like the decisions their school board are making they can vote them out of office.

Most of the uproar I have heard is not from Texas. I do not believe government school should be teaching religion, that should be done in the home.

Tom

unfortunately its not just a local Texas issue...the textbook publishers turn to Texas because they are the largest purchaser of schoolbooks in the country, so some of the decisions that are contested there resonate in books used across the country

Executor of the Alanson C Brown III - Trust

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

You mean the radical separation noted by Jefferson in his letter to the Baptists in 1800 and upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court ever since?

Jefferson was against a STATE religion. If you read your history you will find out that state religions routinely exercised their power with the government to persecute people of different beliefs (churches other than the approved one were illegal). Kind of exactly like what the atheists are doing now. When Jefferson espoused separation he was for the free expression of all religions governed by the common sense of the people. What has happened in this country today is that the common religion of this country which is and always was Christianity has been confused with a state religion which is one in which the church enjoys protection by the state and benefits from taxes. In the early days of this country there were churches that got tax money to operate.

I don't believe that the state should give the church tax dollars to operate. I don't believe the church should be able to call up the sherriff and have another church burned or run out of town. Jefferson believed the same thing.

What is going on today is a complete perversion of the intent of Jefferson and the constitution. When the police show up to take the Ten Commandments out of the town square the state has just declared atheism as the state religion and is acting as the church guard.

The people are not the congress or haven't you noticed? Congress is prohibited from creating a state religion. The people are not prohibited from expressing their common beliefs. If the majority of people believe in the Christian God they have a right to express that and to live that way. If you believe in something else you have a right to express that and to live that way. You do not have a right to call the police and have the Christians thrown in jail for putting a cross in public view. That is exactly what is happening in this country. put up a cross and stand out to protect it and go to jail or get killed because it is not to be tolerated.

Jefferson had the Church of England firmly in mind when he penned his words. The current religious environment is a perversion of the constitution. Congress shall not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. However that is exactly what they have done. Congress and the courts have established atheism as the state religion and have embarked on a campaign to prevent the people of this nation from expressing their belief in the God of Christianity and Judaism.

This is a popular catch phrase, but I am never quite sure what it means. The Constitution does not protect us from people wanting to celebrate their religious beliefs publicly. To do so would violate freedom to practice religion. This is true whether it is you wanting to put up religious displays at Christmas, or your neighbor wanting to put up a display saying there is no God or Santa at the same time. What it does prohibit is the government becoming an agent for publicizing religion. This limitation applies to Texas the same as it applies to the Federal government by virtue of the 14th amendment to the Constitution and a variety of Court cases based on it. However, the choice of textbooks would only become a Consttutional issue if the Board decides to purchase textbooks that incorporate religious teachings that violate the first amendment limits. I agree absolutely that the government should stay away from anything related to teaching religion. However, I have no objection to schools incorporating discussions about the historical role of religion (I do not how one could teach history while ignoring religion) as long as that teaching does not become a vehicle for suggesting that any particular religion is "preferred" or "correct".

No it doesn't. It prohibits the government from establishing one religion and then criminalizing any other. If you think Jefferson intended that a high school football coach should be prevented by law from praying with his team before the game you are insane. If that coach disregards the court ruling he will loose his job, that is religious persecution. By the government which is what the constitution is supposed to prevent.

And if you are going to tell me that letting him pray with his team is religious persecution of anybody who isn't a Christian....well. I can;t help you with that sort of logic.

Jefferson was against a STATE religion. If you read your history you will find out that state religions routinely exercised their power with the government to persecute people of different beliefs (churches other than the approved one were illegal). Kind of exactly like what the atheists are doing now. When Jefferson espoused separation he was for the free expression of all religions governed by the common sense of the people. What has happened in this country today is that the common religion of this country which is and always was Christianity has been confused with a state religion which is one in which the church enjoys protection by the state and benefits from taxes. In the early days of this country there were churches that got tax money to operate.

I don't believe that the state should give the church tax dollars to operate. I don't believe the church should be able to call up the sherriff and have another church burned or run out of town. Jefferson believed the same thing.

What is going on today is a complete perversion of the intent of Jefferson and the constitution. When the police show up to take the Ten Commandments out of the town square the state has just declared atheism as the state religion and is acting as the church guard.

The people are not the congress or haven't you noticed? Congress is prohibited from creating a state religion. The people are not prohibited from expressing their common beliefs. If the majority of people believe in the Christian God they have a right to express that and to live that way. If you believe in something else you have a right to express that and to live that way. You do not have a right to call the police and have the Christians thrown in jail for putting a cross in public view. That is exactly what is happening in this country. put up a cross and stand out to protect it and go to jail or get killed because it is not to be tolerated.

Jefferson had the Church of England firmly in mind when he penned his words. The current religious environment is a perversion of the constitution. Congress shall not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. However that is exactly what they have done. Congress and the courts have established atheism as the state religion and have embarked on a campaign to prevent the people of this nation from expressing their belief in the God of Christianity and Judaism.

Send in the lions regards,

Actually Christianity is a religion and, as it happens, Jefferson and a fair number of the most influential of our forefathers were not. The absence of mentions of God in the Constitution was intentional, not an oversight. Two of our first three Presidents rejected the notion of Christ as a manifestation of God or as being anything other than a very special man. How would they not have viewed a "Christian" nation as that term is now used be viewed as anything other than a state religion with all the tyrannical potential that you note? Everyone has an equal right to express their religious beliefs. What they do not have is the right to express religious beliefs in the name of the country or its government. That constitute "respecting an establishment of religion" and is prohibited by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Leddyman

No it doesn't. It prohibits the government from establishing one religion and then criminalizing any other. If you think Jefferson intended that a high school football coach should be prevented by law from praying with his team before the game you are insane. If that coach disregards the court ruling he will loose his job, that is religious persecution. By the government which is what the constitution is supposed to prevent.

And if you are going to tell me that letting him pray with his team is religious persecution of anybody who isn't a Christian....well. I can;t help you with that sort of logic.

And how would you feel if that coach were a Muslim cleric and his prayer was said to Allah? When I was a kid, I attended a summer camp. On the first night, the counselor said "Since we're all Christians here, Jeff why don't you say the prayer." When I told him I was not Christian, he asked if I were Jewish. When I said no, he said I must be Christian. I told him again that I was not and he said the prayer himself, calling on Jesus to protect us all. He did not handle it badly, but it was still uncomfortable for me and I was subject to a fair amount of ridicule the next day before things settled down. There was no problem with that since it was a private camp. However, the same situation in a public school would be illegal. Then, however, my public school was an extension of the central baptist church and my 5th grade teacher made Jewish children read from the new testament regularly to help them find Jesus.

That, in my mind, is exactly the type of tyranny of religion that our forefathers sought to prevent. However, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the first amendment did not apply to states, and state governments were free to establish their own official religious preferences just as they were free to restrict ownership of guns. Only with passage of the 14th amendment and subsequent Court cases was it determined that states were bound by the first amendment. A similar decision might or might not be made by the SCOTUS with respect to the second amendment soon, and then it too would apply to the states.

The notion that the Courts have somehow established atheism as the state religion is ridiculous. Less than 10% of the population describe themselves as atheists and the electorate is pretty clear that they would never elect an atheist to a major political office. Eisenhower actually stated that he did not believe that anyone who was an atheist was fit for public office, although that may have been affected by the fact that his opposition for the Presidency was a Unitarian who never professed belief in God. Teachers are no more permitted to deny the existence of a God in schools than they are to profess the truth of any particular religion. In fact, despite court restrictions, expressions of religious beliefs in public schools happen routinely. What is prohibited is using the trappings of government to further a particular religious belief (including theism as opposed to atheism, or atheism as opposed to theism). That prohibition applies equally to the religious and the non-religious.